help on table and depth %

[jaybx09]

im about to order a diamond from bluenile.
one diamond has a depth depth of 67.2 and table of 74%
and the other has depth of 72.8 and table of 72%
both are princess cut. bluenile says it doesnt matter that the depth is less then table on the first one as long as it is within an ideal range which they say it is..is this true or should i go with the 2nd one where the percentgaes are better?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/16/2009 9:39:16 AM
Author:jaybx09
im about to order a diamond from bluenile.
one diamond has a depth depth of 67.2 and table of 74%
and the other has depth of 72.8 and table of 72%
both are princess cut. bluenile says it doesnt matter that the depth is less then table on the first one as long as it is within an ideal range which they say it is..is this true or should i go with the 2nd one where the percentgaes are better?

I have no idea what criteria BN use to determine their " Ideal Range" but getting a well cut Princess is not as simple as just depth and table falling within a certain percentage regrettably. All this gives is a vague outline of the diamond. Princess cannot be properly evaluated for cut quality without images such as ASET and detailed photographs, the numbers really do not tell you much. Also the only meaningful use of the term Ideal Cut pertains to AGS0 Ideal cut grade, when this term is used by vendors it in no way guarantees you a well cut diamond.

The experts say it is preferable to have the table of a Princess less than the depth, so this is what we look for in most circumstances. Really it isn't possible to advise just by depth and table of a Princess as we are missing so much information. It is possible that the second diamond might be a better option than the first with the depth and table being closer, but really we can't tell whether it is well cut or not without images and a lot more info. All you can do if you want to buy from BN ( they won't provide images) is to go with the one you think will be best and see what you think when it arrives. You could buy an ASET scope to use yourself if you wished to get an idea of the light return of the diamond, BN do have a 30 day return policy.

ASET link - http://www.ideal-scope.com/cart_zoom_item.asp?Id=23&ShowAdd=Y

 

[Rockdiamond]

A lot of folks here feel like Lorelei, and it''s a proven way to look at this if yiou want an "Ideal" princess cut.
But not all experts agree that the table should be smaller than the depth, or that ASET is necessary to determine a well cut princess.
I do agree that if you do buy without at least photos, you are buying blind.
I''d suggest going with a vendor who can provide ASET and IS images, if that''s the route you decide to take- .
Or alternatively, a vendor that has the diamond in hand and can make a personal assessment for you- BN can not do this.

 

[jaybx09]

soemone from diamond.com (online chat) said i have it reversed..he said table % should be slightly greater then depth %..im getting totally different answers..lol..
thanks for everyones input by the way

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/16/2009 11:17:48 AM
Author: jaybx09
soemone from diamond.com (online chat) said i have it reversed..he said table % should be slightly greater then depth %..im getting totally different answers..lol..
thanks for everyones input by the way

It really depends on who you speak to but generally here a table which is less than the depth is preferred for Princess according to what I have read and been told, but the bottom line for you as a consumer is that it isn't really best to try to buy a Princess or any other fancy shape without images. Otherwise you are buying blind in my opinion and are then dependant on hoping you like what you see when you open the box. There can be other consequences to buying a Princess with a larger table than the depth, the crown height can be shallow as a result which means the diamond may lack fire or coloured light, and it may not be a well balanced diamond as a result. Personally I would not want to buy a Princess in this way as I would not want to gamble ( as I feel it is without images and the rest of the info) but it depends entirely on how you want to approach and conduct your purchase. No method is wrong, but you could liken it to buying a car. A diamond is also a considerable financial outlay, I would not want to spend several thousand dollars buying a car with the only info being it is a 6 year old blue Ford for example, to me buying a fancy shape diamond without images and the rest of the info needed is a similar scenario.

Also not everyone wants a top make cut which is also absolutely fine, but in order to have a pretty rock you do need a reasonable degree of cut quality and craftmanship, again without images there is no way to determine this either.

You could use the search tool above at the top right of the page, enter Princess table size or similar and read up on some of the opinions in the archives, this might help you.

 

[John P]

Date: 2/16/2009 11:17:48 AM
Author: jaybx09
soemone from diamond.com (online chat) said i have it reversed..he said table % should be slightly greater then depth %..im getting totally different answers..lol..
thanks for everyones input by the way

You can hear many different things. A problem for consumers is that performance standards are not enforced for princess cuts like they are for rounds. The AGS was the first major lab to enforce such standards on their reports. In 2006 the GIA added a cut grade for rounds and HRD just introduced their own system. Even second-tier labs offer reports that evaluate cut quality in round brilliants (although some systems can be dubious). The positive for consumers is that a grade which discloses cut quality, the most important factor in diamond performance, is gradually becoming an expectation on round brilliant grading reports.

Meanwhile princess cuts have had nowhere near the study and development as rounds. The princess has only existed for about 40 years. In 2005 the AGS began applying a cut grade for princess cuts based on 3D ray-tracing. While no metric is absolute, the positive of that system is that a certain balance of brightness, fire and contrast is necessary to receive their top grade. Other labs make no performance assessment whatsoever. Logically - as it was with rounds in the 1990s - most manufacturers still prefer to send princess cuts to labs with no cut/performance requirements.

Key to all of this is the fact that yield from the original rough crystal is the manufacturing priority for diamonds...round, princess or other. With that said, manufacturers must now consider that almost any round brilliant they produce will have some type of performance grading enforced, whether AGS, GIA, HRD etc. This has caused a general shift towards better round brilliant cut quality over the past several years (though there are still ways to game the system). Currently there are no such performance enforcements for princess cuts; As a result what you see out there is a pell-mell gamut of cut quality. There are indeed princess cuts where the shape of the rough permitted wonderful performance, even if no cut grade was enforced. A reputable dealer can help you track one down. But the critical angles necessary for maximum light performance are a small geometric window, so it's easy to understand how diamonds with optimum light performance are far more rare than those with average or poor performance as a by-product of manufacturing where the #1 priority is best yield from the rough.

As long as there is no accountability for performance in this shape by grading labs, and as long as dealers are not expected to provide proof of performance (except showing the diamond under bright spotlights) there will not be a concentrated effort to improve cut quality in this shape. As a result I would strongly urge any shopper to insist on some proof of performance. It is more necessary in this shape because cut quality is less regulated.

 

[Rockdiamond]

jaybx09- I think this entire conversation simply re-enforces the fact that trying to buy using some sort of formula is ineffective. This is obvious as you''ve already gotten conflicting answers from different folks.
I wanted to add that Lorelei''s answer was a very good one- I am hesitant to contradict because her answer was very well informed according to the general consensus on this site- but there are other ways to look at this.
John''s company produces an incredibly consistent "Ideal" cut princess cut.
This look is extremely popular with many people here on PS.

In fact, there are other , different ways to cut a princess that can also be considered "well cut" that possess different attributes as compared to the "Ideal Cut"

Have you looked at princess cut diamonds in person?

 

[John P]

David,

With thanks for the compliment - you may have noticed that I avoided use of the word 'ideal' above? Two reasons: First to avoid a term that's used as a 'buzzword' by some sellers using it without the AGS and enforcing loose (or no) standards. Second, with respect for the fact that no metric is absolute.

The message I'm conveying is that a shopper should be aware that in the vast majority of cases no independent performance assessment has been done for this shape. Without that a seller may as well be calling it a 'cream puff.' To that end shoppers should expect some proof of performance if the diamond is touted as a top performer, especially when considering internet-offerings. In that I expect we're saying the same thing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Absolutely John- we are saying the same thing, but we go about it different ways.

 

[oldminer]

Here is a most recent sample of a direct measured light performance grading product we have made since 2006 for a few major firms and also for consumer appraisals when appropriate. There is no point in making such reports for less than near top performers or to needlessly charge for information that is useless or unwanted. Lots of ordinary diamonds get sold compared to just a few finely cut diamonds in any given period of time.

Combine these light performance measures with parametric, craftsmanship data such as the AGA Cut Class charts and you have a good way to know a round, princess, or marquise cut has the best range of light return characteristics combined with the most durable and size to weight appropriate creaftsmanship characterisitic. Both light and craftsmanship play a role in determining which diamonds are in the best range. I like the term "Superior" compared to using the now somewhat overworked and increasingly empty meaning of "Ideal", but either word works so long as there are no weaknesses in the top category of diamonds meeting the combined criteria.

The ImaGem system to do this grading now is more than highly competitive with its competition, such as Gemex. I have no financial stake in ImaGem of any importance, but I have consulted with the firm for over 12 years and feel dedicated to exposing their ideas to new readers and new diamond buyers. It takes time to change minds, but we see change happening these days.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/16/2009 12:15:58 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 2/16/2009 11:17:48 AM
Author: jaybx09
soemone from diamond.com (online chat) said i have it reversed..he said table % should be slightly greater then depth %..im getting totally different answers..lol..
thanks for everyones input by the way

You can hear many different things. A problem for consumers is that performance standards are not enforced for princess cuts like they are for rounds. The AGS was the first major lab to enforce such standards on their reports. In 2006 the GIA added a cut grade for rounds and HRD just introduced their own system. Even second-tier labs offer reports that evaluate cut quality in round brilliants (although some systems can be dubious). The positive for consumers is that a grade which discloses cut quality, the most important factor in diamond performance, is gradually becoming an expectation on round brilliant grading reports.

Meanwhile princess cuts have had nowhere near the study and development as rounds. The princess has only existed for about 40 years. In 2005 the AGS began applying a cut grade for princess cuts based on 3D ray-tracing. While no metric is absolute, the positive of that system is that a certain balance of brightness, fire and contrast is necessary to receive their top grade. Other labs make no performance assessment whatsoever. Logically - as it was with rounds in the 1990s - most manufacturers still prefer to send princess cuts to labs with no cut/performance requirements.

Key to all of this is the fact that yield from the original rough crystal is the manufacturing priority for diamonds...round, princess or other. With that said, manufacturers must now consider that almost any round brilliant they produce will have some type of performance grading enforced, whether AGS, GIA, HRD etc. This has caused a general shift towards better round brilliant cut quality over the past several years (though there are still ways to game the system). Currently there are no such performance enforcements for princess cuts; As a result what you see out there is a pell-mell gamut of cut quality. There are indeed princess cuts where the shape of the rough permitted wonderful performance, even if no cut grade was enforced. A reputable dealer can help you track one down. But the critical angles necessary for maximum light performance are a small geometric window, so it''s easy to understand how diamonds with optimum light performance are far more rare than those with average or poor performance as a by-product of manufacturing where the #1 priority is best yield from the rough.

As long as there is no accountability for performance in this shape by grading labs, and as long as dealers are not expected to provide proof of performance (except showing the diamond under bright spotlights) there will not be a concentrated effort to improve cut quality in this shape. As a result I would strongly urge any shopper to insist on some proof of performance. It is more necessary in this shape because cut quality is less regulated.

Hi John...

What about the [square] Emerald Cuts?
Whats your opinion on AGS''s cut grade for those? Should they be categorized similarly to the Princess Cuts? After all their history is about the same time-span as the modern round.
Should the shoper insist on some proof of performance for Emerald Cuts as well?

 

[John P]

Date: 2/16/2009 4:45:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
Hi John...

What about the [square] Emerald Cuts?
Whats your opinion on AGS's cut grade for those?

I don't have one DG. So few AGS-graded emeralds exist that I haven't been able to correlate my live observations to their metric in a meaningful way. I can interpret a lot from an ASET image and a magnified photo of a step cut, but the diamonds I'm examining in stores usually have GIA reports. On the other hand I routinely compare my live observations of round/princess cuts to their corresponding ASET images, AGS and GIA grades, other viewers in my fun-bag and the opinions of others.

Should they be categorized similarly to the Princess Cuts? After all their history is about the same time-span as the modern round.

No. Different faceting styles.

Should the shoper insist on some proof of performance for Emerald Cuts as well?

If they're seeking performance, yes. In that case I recommend working with a cut-focused expert who has a proven system for selecting - and demonstrating - top performers. Different experts may have different systems.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We agree John, buying from a seller that specializes in fine makes is important- but it also bears mentioning that some of the most respected sellers of fine diamonds in the world use the human eye as the "system"- especially if we're talking Emerald cuts- fancy shapes in general.
I have tremendous respect for the way you, and others, use technology to help people select diamonds.
Personally, I do not feel the term "proof of performance" applies to a diamond- but I acknowledge that it's a popular notion- especially on PS, and if you adopt it, then you could say the "proof" is available.

Princess cuts are a good example for me.
I feel that the AGS definition excludes some really amazing stones. I don't feel that defining what's right in a fancy shape is ever going to happen.

We can use round diamonds as an example.
When I was at grading school, it was the mid '70's, and 60/60 was traditionally thought to be the best proportions.
IN the late '70's ( early '80s?)Lazaare Kaplan began cutting "Ideal" makes. ( John- you're probably able to provide a more accurate history of that part of it...)
Many of the top people in the diamond business feel 60 table is still the right number.
I personally do not feel this is "old" thinking- it's just a preference.

It would seem that GIA agrees, as they included 60% tables in the EX cut grade, and of course so does AGSL.
Still, your company is a great example that there are many consumers that do want some sort of proof, as it is- and also want a smaller tabled diamond.

When it comes to emerald cuts, there are so many different combinations that people find attractive. How can we say one profile is better than another?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/16/2009 5:36:25 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 2/16/2009 4:45:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
Hi John...

What about the [square] Emerald Cuts?
Whats your opinion on AGS''s cut grade for those?

I don''t have one DG. So few AGS-graded emeralds exist that I haven''t been able to correlate my live observations to their metric in a meaningful way. I can interpret a lot from an ASET image and a magnified photo of a step cut, but the diamonds I''m examining in stores usually have GIA reports. On the other hand I routinely compare my live observations of round/princess cuts to their corresponding ASET images, AGS and GIA grades, other viewers in my fun-bag and the opinions of others.

Should they be categorized similarly to the Princess Cuts? After all their history is about the same time-span as the modern round.

No. Different faceting styles. Why? EC performance is still "somehow" judged by their "balance of brightness, fire and contrast" among other things..., no?

Should the shoper insist on some proof of performance for Emerald Cuts as well?

If they''re seeking performance, yes. In that case I recommend working with a cut-focused expert who has a proven system for selecting - and demonstrating - top performers. Different experts may have different systems.

I think we should start being careful how we use the word performance (in regards to Diamond visuals)...
I cant help but noticing many vendors are freely using this word in conjunction specific "top" cut grades ..., my English is a bit soft (and I may be wrong)..., but couldnt performance be used in conjunction with "beauty"? If yes..., this could act misleadingly towards some consumers and vendors as one...
Maybe when using performance..., it should be accompanied with some sort of adjective? just a thought....

John..., AGS''s Princess cut grade is proven in what sense? Isnt their EC cut grade also proven? I am a bit confused...

One thing I agree with you fully...., "different experts may have different systems" respectfully...

 

[John P]

Date: 2/16/2009 6:02:35 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
We agree John, buying from a seller that specializes in fine makes is important- but it also bears mentioning that some of the most respected sellers of fine diamonds in the world use the human eye as the 'system'- especially if we're talking Emerald cuts- fancy shapes in general.
I have tremendous respect for the way you, and others, use technology to help people select diamonds.
Personally, I do not feel the term 'proof of performance' applies to a diamond- but I acknowledge that it's a popular notion- especially on PS, and if you adopt it, then you could say the 'proof' is available.

That's my preeminent system too David. See above; the reason I can't comment on what AGS is doing with emerald cuts is because I have not been able to correlate their grading with my eyes, what I see in the scope (I use that view to better-understand what my eyes saw) and their grading. Meanwhile I do it constantly with our brand, and with countless diamonds in the stores where I do training.

"Proof of performance" applies to me whenever someone is looking for something other than a nailhead, fisheye or dead stone. Of course let's use our eyes. But all the better, when we find spectacular life in a diamond, to able to say "aha...this is why we see what we see in this particular firecracker."

Princess cuts are a good example for me.
I feel that the AGS definition excludes some really amazing stones. I don't feel that defining what's right in a fancy shape is ever going to happen.

You've said that and I'm not one to squelch taste factors. I imagine, should you share a few princess cuts you find spectacular with me over a cocktail or two, I could show you in the ASET, how to identify the qualities which engage you. Perhaps the waitress would be amused.

We can use round diamonds as an example.
When I was at grading school, it was the mid '70's, and 60/60 was traditionally thought to be the best proportions.
IN the late '70's ( early '80s?)Lazaare Kaplan began cutting 'Ideal' makes. ( John- you're probably able to provide a more accurate history of that part of it...)
Many of the top people in the diamond business feel 60 table is still the right number.
I personally do not feel this is 'old' thinking- it's just a preference.

The 1920s actually! LK was Marcel Tolkowsky's cousin and they jumped right on it after 1919. Tiffany & Co and Cartier took their cues pretty quickly... LK did not launch their 'branded' diamond until the 70s or 80s though.

As for preference, no argument.

It would seem that GIA agrees, as they included 60% tables in the EX cut grade, and of course so does AGSL.
Still, your company is a great example that there are many consumers that do want some sort of proof, as it is- and also want a smaller tabled diamond.

Both GIA and AGS give most configurations for their top grade in 55-56% table sizes. Both labs also give about 2/3 the possibilities at 60% and no possibilities by 63%. For this reason I do admire a nice 60/60, not just because it can look great, but because the window of critical angles is narrower for the cutter to hit than it is with the table at 55-57%.

When it comes to emerald cuts, there are so many different combinations that people find attractive. How can we say one profile is better than another?

It depends on what the observer is looking for.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/16/2009 6:02:35 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

When it comes to emerald cuts, there are so many different combinations that people find attractive. How can we say one profile is better than another?

You mean fancy shapes in general..., right?

 

[John P]

Date: 2/16/2009 6:24:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/16/2009 5:36:25 PM
Author: John Pollard
If they're seeking performance, yes. In that case I recommend working with a cut-focused expert who has a proven system for selecting - and demonstrating - top performers. Different experts may have different systems.

John..., AGS's Princess cut grade is proven in what sense? Isnt their EC cut grade also proven? I am a bit confused...

See red above. I have a system. You have a system. David has a system. They may overlap in some areas and not in others, bringing us to -

One thing I agree with you fully...., 'different experts may have different systems' respectfully...

 

[strmrdr]

What is funny is there is one cutter cutting SE's loosely based on the AGS guidelines and they get ags0 performance and proportion grades but they are sent to GIA for grading because that is what the market wants.

The problem with the above diamonds while they have nice spread there is a large price premium and they are not practical because of magic numbers in some weight ranges and it takes the right dealer to sell them.
They will never be a large part of the market.

The problem with the AGS EC/SE system is it is entirely possible to cut 100% to the guidelines and cut a blecky diamond because contrast pattern beauty is not taken into account.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/16/2009 7:47:33 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 2/16/2009 6:24:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/16/2009 5:36:25 PM
Author: John Pollard
If they''re seeking performance, yes. In that case I recommend working with a cut-focused expert who has a proven system for selecting - and demonstrating - top performers. Different experts may have different systems.

John..., AGS''s Princess cut grade is proven in what sense? Isnt their EC cut grade also proven? I am a bit confused...

See red above. I have a system. You have a system. David has a system. They may overlap in some areas and not in others, bringing us to -

One thing I agree with you fully...., ''different experts may have different systems'' respectfully...

I know we all have systems...., but you used to word proven..., so my question was..., is AGS cut grade for fancy''s (EC and SMB) proven in any way?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/16/2009 10:48:11 PM
Author: strmrdr
What is funny is there is one cutter cutting SE''s loosely based on the AGS guidelines and they get ags0 performance and proportion grades but they are sent to GIA for grading because that is what the market wants.

The problem with the above diamonds while they have nice spread there is a large price premium and they are not practical because of magic numbers in some weight ranges and it takes the right dealer to sell them.
They will never be a large part of the market.

The problem with the AGS EC/SE system is it is entirely possible to cut 100% to the guidelines and cut a blecky diamond because contrast pattern beauty is not taken into account.

Are they taken into account with the SMB''s?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/17/2009 8:24:20 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/16/2009 10:48:11 PM
Author: strmrdr
What is funny is there is one cutter cutting SE''s loosely based on the AGS guidelines and they get ags0 performance and proportion grades but they are sent to GIA for grading because that is what the market wants.

The problem with the above diamonds while they have nice spread there is a large price premium and they are not practical because of magic numbers in some weight ranges and it takes the right dealer to sell them.
They will never be a large part of the market.

The problem with the AGS EC/SE system is it is entirely possible to cut 100% to the guidelines and cut a blecky diamond because contrast pattern beauty is not taken into account.

Are they taken into account with the SMB''s?

Speak of the devil

,


http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=25343


" AGS Labs Introduces Light Performance Quality Report for Royal Asscher Cut


By Jeff Miller Posted: 02/17/09 09:32


RAPAPORT... AGS Laboratories will introduce a Light Performance Diamond Quality Report for the Royal Asscher Cut diamond in the U.S. AGS has performed extensive research on the proprietary diamond in order to determine a grading system for it based on AGS''s Light Performance Cut Grade methodology.

The Royal Asscher Cut is protected by a worldwide patent. Royal Asscher’s own laboratory in Amsterdam grades each diamond, and laser-inscribes each with the company logo and an individual identification number. Royal Asscher then sends the diamonds to AGS Labs for recertification.

Lita Asscher, president of Royal Asscher of America, said, “The Royal Asscher Cut was two years in research and development before it launched in 2001. There are distinct and crucial differences between the Royal Asscher Cut and the Asscher or square-emerald cut. By working with AGS Laboratories we aim to further educate the jeweler and consumer market about the key differences between the two cuts, and simultaneously protect our patent.

She added that, as proprietary cuts gain marketshare, it is important for labs and brands to work together to protect intellecutal property rights. "AGS Laboratories’ decision to offer proprietary-cut grading ensures that the rights of jewelers are protected when they purchase branded diamonds, offering vital security throughout the buy chain from jeweler to consumer,” Asscher said. "

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have to agree with Diagem about the use of the word "proven"

I do feel that PS does offer "proof" based on people''s experiences. The part that makes the word questionable is that outside PS, in the diamond trade, light return technology is not considered "proven" technology by all.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/17/2009 1:42:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I have to agree with Diagem about the use of the word ''proven''


I do feel that PS does offer ''proof'' based on people''s experiences. The part that makes the word questionable is that outside PS, in the diamond trade, light return technology is not considered ''proven'' technology by all.

A large section of the trade believes memo is a good thing that doesn''t make it so.
A large section of the trade believes fluorescence is always bad that doesn''t make it so.
A large section of the trade believes online sellers are evil that doesn''t make it so.

The technology is proven the problem is in the implementation of the systems in some areas.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/17/2009 1:42:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I have to agree with Diagem about the use of the word ''proven''

I do feel that PS does offer ''proof'' based on people''s experiences. The part that makes the word questionable is that outside PS, in the diamond trade, light return technology is not considered ''proven'' technology by all.

David..., to agree with me..., you need to understand me first...

I asked John a question..., I asked if the "cut grade" by AGS for fancy''s (EC and SMB so far) is proven..., if the performance based on this cut is proven?

Light return technology exists and I believe is proven to this point as a tool of measure...
Its (in my opinion) a part of the overall performance...

As far as the Diamond trade..., a majority (I am being modest

) of members of the trade dont even know
"light return technology" exist, let alone the proven part of it...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Diagem- I do believe that, amazingly enough, we do agree in part, on this subject.
If I am mistaken, you have my sincere apologies.

Karl- all the beliefs you mention are simply opinions- but I would also include light return machines and their effectiveness in the category of opinion, as opposed to proven fact.
I suppose the question would be- the technology is proved to do what?
If someone wants the type of stone called "Ideal" cut, PS proves it works.
To make it even clearer- if someone wants the type of stone that does well in an IS, or ASET, then clearly using the technology which is proven here daily, they can get diamond that scores well on these tests.
What's NOT proven is that a diamond that has ( for example) hearts and arrows is prettier, or even more desirable, than one that does not have a discernible pattern.
It's not proven that simply because a diamond scores well on light return tests it's a "better " cut than one that might not score well on the same tests.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/17/2009 4:04:48 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I suppose the question would be- the technology is proved to do what?

Categorize round brilliant diamonds in a meaningful way.
Some don't work as well on EC and other fancies.

If you want to extend it to DiamCalc then add proven to be able to be used to design diamonds by me personally with DiaGem cutting them.

edit: We really need to move this discussion to another thread as we are badly off topic.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl-= we agree- this is off topic.
Of course I feel that the categorization you refer to is skewed- but I agree that the conversation belongs in a more appropriate place.
If you start a discussion, I''ll be there!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/17/2009 5:04:05 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Karl-= we agree- this is off topic.

Of course I feel that the categorization you refer to is skewed- but I agree that the conversation belongs in a more appropriate place.

If you start a discussion, I''ll be there!

will do tonight or tomorrow I want to be careful on how I word it so I don''t start a fight.

 

[kcoursolle]

I just wanted to suggest that unfortunately BN isn''t the best place in my opinion to buy a princess cut stone. I think it helps to have images of the stone to get a better idea of what they look like and BN doesn''t offer this.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well, that was a thread jack if ever I saw one!!!

Jaybx you can not safely buy princess cut diamonds with numbers.
I recomend using a dealer who will give you ASET images.

I do not recomend using a dealer who takes pictures in non standardised ways - or if one does then insist that they include another well cut round stone as a comparison in the exact same photo.

There has been a lot of discussion about proven systems and different opinions. DG as you and storm well know the patterns in asschers and step cuts are as or more important than light return. So AGS''s system has a big disadvantage, but it is an evolving system and perhaps in years to come they will solve some problems. But at least they are trying.